The War in Libya

I'm sure everyone has heard that France, the United States, and the UK have launched air attacks on Gaddafi. Gaddafi has said "no mercy" in his attempt to retain power and he supports terrorism. I think what we are doing is a humanitarian effort to stop a lunatic from hurting people who aren't able to really defend themselves.

Now, I've been reading comments made on both American and British news websites. The majority of Americans keep referring to the Iraq/Afghanistan war as a comparison. They claim we're going in for oil or refer to things like "oh next they're gonna tell us they have weapons of mass destruction." Do they not see that it is 3 countries-not just the US- standing up for citizen's rights? Obama also said that ground troops will not be deployed. A lot of the comments I've heard/seen have ignored that statement and they compare Obama to George Bush. The comments made on British sites seem to also have the same views-oil. I really don't see it? Now, if we launch an all out war against Libya, I might just change my mind.

I wanted to post this to see other like-minded people's opinions from around the world. What are your views?

Replies to This Discussion

The way I see it, we're only interested in oil. For the record, I'm an American. If we were truly into supporting human rights, we would have intervened in Egypt and Tunisia, and would be intervening in Bahrain and Yemen. What makes Libya different? Libya has shit-tons of oil while those other countries don't. Throw in the fact that Gaddafi has been very critical of us in the past and is friends with others who don't like us (Hugo Chavez), it's not hard to smell the ulterior motives. While Libya is different from Iraq/Afghanistan in that America isn't acting unilaterally, the only reason we bothered is to cover our tracks and make it look like we actually care about human rights.

In response to Obama saying we won't have troops on the ground, I'll believe it once I see it. Even if this promise is kept and the rebels win, they'll owe their victory to the west. If they don't capitulate to our inevitable "request" (read: demand) for oil, we'll just put the squeeze on them until they do. Now maybe I'm cynical. Maybe I've been jaded by the two wars we're already engaged in. I'm young (22) and can't really remember a time when we weren't involved in the middle east. I was in Jr. High when 9/11 happened. But based on everything I've seen and know from history, the only thing we truly care about in Libya is oil.

I'll believe Obama about not landing troops once this is over and he's kept his word. I was trying to express my doubts that he'll stick to that.

While I admit you have a point on Tunisia and Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen have both used live ammunition to gun down peaceful, unarmed protestors. If that's not a declaration of war, I'm not sure what is. In Ivory Coast, artillery was used. While these regimes haven't used bombers, they've still used deadly force. We didn't lift a finger in any of those cases to intervene, and still aren't, even though we have the capacity to do so quite easily (even more so than in Libya in the cases of Bahrain and Yemen).

Adam. yeah, you're right. There is such a thing as State Soverignty. This is what allowed the Vatican - a country of about 110 acres, to help a lot of top Nazi war criminals avoid prosecution after WW 2. Pope Pius X11 hid them at his summer palace, Castle Gondolfo, until arrangements could be made to 'spirit them away' to old German enclaves in Paraguay. ( Diplomatic immunity ) Both U.S. & English knew of this grossly immoral act, but were powerless to act.

I think you have to be realistic about this and think of the reasons why Qadaffi is no longer an ally for the EU and consequently for the US.

For the US it is a different matter than for the EU, Libya's oil and gas goes on the European market (mainly via Italy.) Now instead temporarily Saudi oil fills the gap and that makes it US business. The US always had a difficult relation with Qadaffi because of his socialism in the Cold War and his Nasserian pan-Arabism. Now there is a new costumer on the market, China. China has a policy of keeping out of internal affairs of other countries, also self-interest of course, but now China is on par with Berlusconia propping up Qaddafi. If the Qaddafi dynasty remains in power China has put itself in a very favorable light with that regime. And that too makes it US business. I really don't know but I'd wager this played some role in the decision.

Another reason for the EU is that Libya is a gateway for African refugees and immigrants trying to get to Europe. Especially now Europe is full of right wing governments elected on anti-immigration platforms, especially with respect to non-Western immigrants, this is politically important enough to become a factor for military intervention. All kinds ofagreements with Qadaffi are made to keepthe unwanted people in Libya or whatever he wants to do with them.

Qaddafi can no longer be trusted to fulfill that role either.

Now as I understand it, the Libyan resistance has requested "air support" and that makes a lot of difference for me, even as I am fully aware that there is a price tag to it they committed themselves to which is not necessarily in accordance with humanitarianism in a broader perspective.

I'd like to say that America's position will just still stay as "air support" but I really don't see it happening. Gadhafi has now said he intends to fully fight back. I have a feeling this really will be a long war, unless Gadhafi is killed.

There are some parallels between Saakashvili and Qadaffi, they are equally mad, power hungry and have a talent to cling on to power, and they equally lack the slightest consideration for human life.

But Russia did not declare war on Georgia, it was Georgia's corrupt megalomaniac dictator, pardon me "authoritarian ruler" who started the "war" knowingly, cynically and deliberately and timed it perfectly to coincide with the Olympics in China. He just miscalculated on what his neocon friends could do at the time, not that they weren't willing to start a war against Russia. They're sufficiently insane for that.

While I am not going to jump on the boat of "OIL", I don't agree with my country( U.S.) going in to another conflict. The U.S. is already trying to cut back on domestic spending, so I don't see how we are in the place for more fighting. A lot of my friends are for the "no fly zone" and if NATO just did a "no fly zone" then I could be for it, but I don't see it stopping there. The rebels are not well funded or trained. They don't have a good chance unless we pour a good amount of money and resource( like soldiers) into them. Also, I think that we are doing this for human right, but only because to distance to Europe. When rebels are killed in large numbers in the Central Republic of Africa NATO doesn't jump in. We don't invaded North Korea yet, they seem to be more or a threat. I do hope that in the choices that our countries have made that Libya a better place for its people. I just hope it is soon and not in ten years.

These types of events are the ones that define America and its place in the world. The cost of being a superpower is that you will be looked at to resolve events like these. Inactivity would mean that another dictator would check if they can get away with, literally, murder. If America stops interfering there will be a massive arms race in the world to become the second superpower which then will be looked upon to weigh in. In the current situation, that would most likely be China.

I sometimes disagree with their solutions, but I understand their position. In this case, the US have to support on a limited scale. 'Support' because otherwise the danger of being perceived uninvolved, 'limited' because of your other recent Arab excursion.